iambiguous wrote:Look, you are either convinced that objective morality exist [in a No God world] or you are not.

I want to repeat the above has nothing to do with 'objectivist', it is about dualism and related to Moral Dualism in this case.

That's precisely why I want to bring all of this down to a particular context. I'm confused regarding your point here. Are you arguing that conflicting goods do in fact exist [here and now] but that, in the future, by embodying "progressive Middle-Way" behaviors, mere mortals [in a No God world] can interact sans conflict? Or are you arguing that if the conflicting goods are still around in the future rational men and women can choose to behave such that they will necessarily embody right rather than wrong behaviors?

In a No God world in the future, duality will still exists but the human emotional and psychological interaction with such conflicting goods will be different.Instead of clinging to either one extreme or the other extreme, the future rational men and women with interact with conflicting goods in a complementary Middle-Way.

It is like walking on a tight rope with strong winds blowing.The effective Middle-Way approach is to tilt up to the maximal right or left as necessary to maintain balance without falling but each time one strive to get back to the middle.But if one were to merely lean only to the one side at the edge and limit, one is most likely to fall from the tight rope.

In other words, what on earth does this...

Moral dualism is the belief of the great complement of or conflict between the benevolent and the malevolent. It simply implies that there are two moral opposites at work, independent of any interpretation of what might be "moral" and independent of how these may be represented. Moral opposites might, for example, exist in a worldview which has one god, more than one god, or none. - wiki

...have to do with the conflicting goods embedded [here and now] in an issue like abortion?

Not sure of your point?

As I had stated with an issue of abortion 'here and now,' if one do not have the competent skills to deal with its conflicting goods, there is nothing much one can do except to do one's best based on whatever skill has and accept the associated mental pains.

It is just like a person who is not a skilled tight-rope-walker and being place on a tight rope and forced to walk across, thus wobbling all the way with fears or even fall to death.

Re the case of abortion, the solution in the near future is to develop the psychological skills to deal with it. In the later future humanity will strive for ZERO unwanted pregnancies [via a feasible master plan] so there is no issue related to 'abortion' at all.

In the future whilst humanity has solved the abortion issue, Moral Dualism will still exists as I had stated P and -P in other scenarios will always exist to be dealt with. But in the future rational man and woman will not be heavily effected psychological and emotionally by dualism.

For other issues it is not the case that rational/wiser people will always do the right thing in the future, they will still commit wrongs but their acts will be net-positively right plus they have a model and system to continually improve on the wrongs to the minimal.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

iambiguous wrote:Are you arguing that conflicting goods do in fact exist [here and now] but that, in the future, by embodying "progressive Middle-Way" behaviors, mere mortals [in a No God world] can interact sans conflict? Or are you arguing that if the conflicting goods are still around in the future rational men and women can choose to behave such that they will necessarily embody right rather than wrong behaviors?

Okay, if they will always exist in this No God world of the future, then philosophers [using the tools at their disposal] are either able to encompass the optimal behaviors for those who wish to be thought of as rational, or one or another combination of the factors that I note will become embodied [subjectively/subjunctively] in particular [and often conflicting] existential narratives.

Narratives that will necessarily continue to evolve in a world of contingency, chance and change.

Prismatic567 wrote: In a No God world in the future, duality will still exists but the human emotional and psychological interaction with such conflicting goods will be different.Instead of clinging to either one extreme or the other extreme, the future rational men and women with interact with conflicting goods in a complementary Middle-Way.

Perhaps, but [so far] only in this "world of words" that you construct in your head. You have given us no arguments from which we can imagine/visualize these "complementary Middle-Way" behaviors pertaining to an issue like abortion.

Note to others:

If you believe that he has please note/link them.

Prismatic567 wrote: It is like walking on a tight rope with strong winds blowing.

I'll bet it is.

Prismatic567 wrote: The effective Middle-Way approach is to tilt up to the maximal right or left as necessary to maintain balance without falling but each time one strive to get back to the middle.But if one were to merely lean only to the one side at the edge and limit, one is most likely to fall from the tight rope.

But I repeat myself: What on earth does this mean?

You speak of "competent skills" in a No God world as though this is not based entirely on an objectivist of your ilk persuading a moral nihilist of my ilk that this does indeed revolve around your own list of prescriptive and proscriptive behaviors.

Which you will not focus the beam on in the manner in which I argue is more likely to make your point clearer to, among others, those fierce combatants outside the abortion clinic.

How would a "moral dualist" approach the issue of gun control? What would he or she note to the students and the parents at Parkland High School in Florida?

Should they aim more in the direction of banning assault rifles, or, instead, focus their attention on developing the "psychological skills" needed to cope with these tragedies? Or come up with the optimal combination of both.

Prismatic567 wrote: In the future whilst humanity has solved the abortion issue, Moral Dualism will still exists as I had stated P and -P in other scenarios will always exist to be dealt with. But in the future rational man and woman will not be heavily effected psychological and emotionally by dualism.

For other issues it is not the case that rational/wiser people will always do the right thing in the future, they will still commit wrongs but their acts will be net-positively right plus they have a model and system to continually improve on the wrongs to the minimal.

From my own frame of mind [and that's all it is, an existential prejudice] this simply comes off as yet another "general decription" of words defining and defending other words. It almost seems like psychobabble to me.

This:

Psychobabble: a form of speech or writing that uses psychological jargon, buzzwords, and esoteric language to create an impression of truth or plausibility.

But, again, it's not really connected to anything substantive. There is not an actual context we can turn to in order to test the relevancy or the applicability of the points being made.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

iambiguous wrote:Are you arguing that conflicting goods do in fact exist [here and now] but that, in the future, by embodying "progressive Middle-Way" behaviors, mere mortals [in a No God world] can interact sans conflict? Or are you arguing that if the conflicting goods are still around in the future rational men and women can choose to behave such that they will necessarily embody right rather than wrong behaviors?

Okay, if they will always exist in this No God world of the future, then philosophers [using the tools at their disposal] are either able to encompass the optimal behaviors for those who wish to be thought of as rational, or one or another combination of the factors that I note will become embodied [subjectively/subjunctively] in particular [and often conflicting] existential narratives.

Narratives that will necessarily continue to evolve in a world of contingency, chance and change.

Prismatic567 wrote: In a No God world in the future, duality will still exists but the human emotional and psychological interaction with such conflicting goods will be different.Instead of clinging to either one extreme or the other extreme, the future rational men and women with interact with conflicting goods in a complementary Middle-Way.

Perhaps, but [so far] only in this "world of words" that you construct in your head. You have given us no arguments from which we can imagine/visualize these "complementary Middle-Way" behaviors pertaining to an issue like abortion.

Note to others:

If you believe that he has please note/link them.

I have done so in various posts. I don't keep a record, so not easy for me to find them in this 'haystack'.

Prismatic567 wrote: It is like walking on a tight rope with strong winds blowing.

I'll bet it is.

Prismatic567 wrote: The effective Middle-Way approach is to tilt up to the maximal right or left as necessary to maintain balance without falling but each time one strive to get back to the middle.But if one were to merely lean only to the one side at the edge and limit, one is most likely to fall from the tight rope.

But I repeat myself: What on earth does this mean?

It is something like centering yourself whenever one tilt to one extreme and to the other.

As humans we are vulnerable to be exposed or engaged in extreme opposites. i.e. conflicting [rival] goods or evil behaviors and thoughts. Thus we need to develop the necessary skills to get back to our center [being the most stable position psychologically].

E.g. if you are walking on tightrope with wind blowing from different sides and one is pushed to one side. Now if you do not make an attempt to adjust to the center line, then you are likely to be pushed to the extreme and fall.The expert tightrope walker will always adjust him/herself back to the center at the slightest deviation to the side.

This is what will happen when one fail to center in tightrope walking or in living life.

You speak of "competent skills" in a No God world as though this is not based entirely on an objectivist of your ilk persuading a moral nihilist of my ilk that this does indeed revolve around your own list of prescriptive and proscriptive behaviors.

Which you will not focus the beam on in the manner in which I argue is more likely to make your point clearer to, among others, those fierce combatants outside the abortion clinic.

How would a "moral dualist" approach the issue of gun control? What would he or she note to the students and the parents at Parkland High School in Florida?

Should they aim more in the direction of banning assault rifles, or, instead, focus their attention on developing the "psychological skills" needed to cope with these tragedies? Or come up with the optimal combination of both.

Example:Say I am within sight of a 10,000++ crowd of abortion protestors and fierce combatants in front of an abortion clinic.What do you expect me to do?

If would be very stupid of me to get a megaphone and start philosophizing with them or convince each of them of the right thing to do there and then. This is what you expect me to do?

The wiser thing to do are the following;

1. Let the authorities and the law to take care of the current situation2. Observe and listen to what is going on - keep my emotions in check.3. Research on the subject of abortion re For versus Against.4. Apply the Generic Problem Solving Technique to understand and find solutions.5. Proposed solutions to be implemented6. Check the results and control with objectives set

The processes of 3, 4 will take some time to arrive at consensus and 5 & 6 will take a longer time.This is why I have to project my thoughts into the FUTURE and in this case the phases will take us into the future 50, 100 or > years.

In your case your are just ruminating and brooding over the problem and not taking any action nor proposing suggestions to resolve the problem -which can only be done in the FUTURE.All you can do is to decry and cry - "I am stuck with existentialism." [I believe you misunderstood the real essence of existentialism]

Prismatic567 wrote: In the future whilst humanity has solved the abortion issue, Moral Dualism will still exists as I had stated P and -P in other scenarios will always exist to be dealt with. But in the future rational man and woman will not be heavily effected psychological and emotionally by dualism.

For other issues it is not the case that rational/wiser people will always do the right thing in the future, they will still commit wrongs but their acts will be net-positively right plus they have a model and system to continually improve on the wrongs to the minimal.

From my own frame of mind [and that's all it is, an existential prejudice] this simply comes off as yet another "general decription" of words defining and defending other words. It almost seems like psychobabble to me.

This:

Psychobabble: a form of speech or writing that uses psychological jargon, buzzwords, and esoteric language to create an impression of truth or plausibility.

But, again, it's not really connected to anything substantive. There is not an actual context we can turn to in order to test the relevancy or the applicability of the points being made.

It is unfortunate you are stuck with psychobabble yourself.

Note I have sufficient philosophical knowledge to deal with any issues and most important is I am taking real actions example phase 1 to 5 of the above 1-6 process to contribute whatever I can to humanity.

What I proposed is not psychobabble because my suggestions are abstracted from real life proven empirical evidences. There are many examples of results from Eastern spirituality and positive incremental trends real life moral/ethical issues, e.g. Chattel Slavery and others. The limitations is so far these approaches are based on the 'black-box' approaches without understanding the internal mechanisms.However with the present trend of an exponential expansion of knowledge and technology, I am very optimistic humanity will be able to understand more details of the inner mechanisms of the black-box and thus be above to improve efficiency.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

Prismatic567 wrote: The effective Middle-Way approach is to tilt up to the maximal right or left as necessary to maintain balance without falling but each time one strive to get back to the middle.But if one were to merely lean only to the one side at the edge and limit, one is most likely to fall from the tight rope.

But I repeat myself: What on earth does this mean?

Prismatic567 wrote: It is something like centering yourself whenever one tilt to one extreme and to the other.

As humans we are vulnerable to be exposed or engaged in extreme opposites. i.e. conflicting [rival] goods or evil behaviors and thoughts. Thus we need to develop the necessary skills to get back to our center [being the most stable position psychologically].

From my frame of mind, a typical leap from one general description to another. Here and now what would constitute the most stable position psychologically for a woman [Mary] with an unwanted pregnancy who agrues that it is her political right to abort the fetus. As oppose to, say, her boyfriend [the father, John] who argues that the most stable psychological position for the fetus is that it be allowed to come into this world as a newborn baby.

Consider: "in your head" here and now you imagine a future world where abortion ceases to exist. Why? Because in embracing your own rendition of "progressive Middle-Way" behaviors there is simply no need for them.

What I am still confused regarding however is how you would discuss this with John and Mary [who are not living in the future] so as to encourage them to come up with a way of dealing with this unwanted pregnancy. Unwanted only by Mary however.

Prismatic567 wrote: E.g. if you are walking on tightrope with wind blowing from different sides and one is pushed to one side. Now if you do not make an attempt to adjust to the center line, then you are likely to be pushed to the extreme and fall.The expert tightrope walker will always adjust him/herself back to the center at the slightest deviation to the side.

E.g.? The tightrope walker up on the wire interacts with the elements in an entirely either/or world. He either defeats them or they defeat him.

Morality [in a No God world] is only relevant here when the argument shifts to, say, whether or not his family and loved ones are obligated to talk him out of it. Or whether or not the authorities ought to allow him to do this. Is it his right to risk death in this particular context?

You speak of "competent skills" in a No God world as though this is not based entirely on an objectivist of your ilk persuading a moral nihilist of my ilk that this does indeed revolve around your own list of prescriptive and proscriptive behaviors.

Which you will not focus the beam on in the manner in which I argue is more likely to make your point clearer to, among others, those fierce combatants outside the abortion clinic.

How would a "moral dualist" approach the issue of gun control? What would he or she note to the students and the parents at Parkland High School in Florida?

Should they aim more in the direction of banning assault rifles, or, instead, focus their attention on developing the "psychological skills" needed to cope with these tragedies? Or come up with the optimal combination of both.

Prismatic567 wrote: Example:Say I am within sight of a 10,000++ crowd of abortion protestors and fierce combatants in front of an abortion clinic.What do you expect me to do?

Provide them with an argument able to convince them that while they clearly embrace "rival goods" here and now there is a way to think about abortion such that "in the future" the rival goods will no longer exists; or if they do exist there is a "generic Problem Solving Technique" that allows rational human beings to derive the optimal "progressive Middle-Way" human behaviors.

You have to start somewhere right? I just wish you would start with considerably more substance regarding the actual rival goods that are embraced here and now.

Instead, we get another intellectual contraption:

Prismatic567 wrote: The wiser thing to do are the following;

1. Let the authorities and the law to take care of the current situation2. Observe and listen to what is going on - keep my emotions in check.3. Research on the subject of abortion re For versus Against.4. Apply the Generic Problem Solving Technique to understand and find solutions.5. Proposed solutions to be implemented6. Check the results and control with objectives set

And then:

Prismatic567 wrote: The processes of 3, 4 will take some time to arrive at consensus and 5 & 6 will take a longer time.This is why I have to project my thoughts into the FUTURE and in this case the phases will take us into the future 50, 100 or > years.

Meanwhile here and now the focus is still on either the "natural right" of the baby to be born or the "political right" of the mother to abort it. And the only way that goes away here and now is still in your head.

Let's at least agree on that.

Or, if not, please advise me of how the "real action" that you are taking above has anything remotely to do with the arguments engaged by those outside the abortion clinic pertaining to the actual abortions unfolding inside the clinic.

Also, let's get back to this:

How would a "moral dualist" approach the issue of gun control? What would he or she note to the students and the parents at Parkland High School in Florida?

Should they aim more in the direction of banning assault rifles, or, instead, focus their attention on developing the "psychological skills" needed to cope with these tragedies? Or come up with the optimal combination of both.

What might the optimal combination of both sound like in a philosophical argument?

The assumption always being [between us] that this all unfolds in a No God world.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Prismatic567 wrote: The effective Middle-Way approach is to tilt up to the maximal right or left as necessary to maintain balance without falling but each time one strive to get back to the middle.But if one were to merely lean only to the one side at the edge and limit, one is most likely to fall from the tight rope.

But I repeat myself: What on earth does this mean?

Prismatic567 wrote: It is something like centering yourself whenever one tilt to one extreme and to the other.

As humans we are vulnerable to be exposed or engaged in extreme opposites. i.e. conflicting [rival] goods or evil behaviors and thoughts. Thus we need to develop the necessary skills to get back to our center [being the most stable position psychologically].

From my frame of mind, a typical leap from one general description to another. Here and now what would constitute the most stable position psychologically for a woman [Mary] with an unwanted pregnancy who agrues that it is her political right to abort the fetus. As oppose to, say, her boyfriend [the father, John] who argues that the most stable psychological position for the fetus is that it be allowed to come into this world as a newborn baby.

Consider: "in your head" here and now you imagine a future world where abortion ceases to exist. Why? Because in embracing your own rendition of "progressive Middle-Way" behaviors there is simply no need for them.

What I am still confused regarding however is how you would discuss this with John and Mary [who are not living in the future] so as to encourage them to come up with a way of dealing with this unwanted pregnancy. Unwanted only by Mary however.

As I had stated wherever there is a problem we need to view it from various perspectives for the individuals, groups, and humanity in terms of the following;

1. Past trends2. Present situation3. Future state

My focus so far is on the groups and for humanity, i.e. based on past trend and present situation, how can we prevent, reduce and eliminate the problem from emerging in the future in time [re being and time].

My focus is not on the individual because I am not personally entangled on the issue, i.e. for or against abortion.I have personal experiences [some meeting while others do not MY expectations] with my children on other issues -albeit not as critical as the issue of abortion.

In a here and now situation, the following should be noted;

1. Preferable one should have reasonable state of equanimity.2. Know Thyself - do you have the competence to give psychological counselling to another, if not you will need him/her to consult expert[s].3. Do your best but do not expect things to meet YOUR expectations.4. If the other person is an adult say over 18, if it is not a crime, s/he is entitled to the final decision.5. Before engaging the persons involved note their past, present historicity [da-sein and being in time] and future potentials.6. .. and other necessary steps.

As for John & Mary, there is no way I know their Nature [DNA, etc], past, present historicity [da-sein and being in time] and future potentials, the most efficient approach is for me to propose the above generic systematic procedures.

As what you can do is to DO YOUR BEST re the issues surrounding John and Mary, and if you have done your best that is sufficient [how else??]. Whatever the final decisions and consequences [even if lives and deaths are involved] is up to them to face.

But from what I gathered, it is not so much as John and Mary's having problems, but it is rather YOU having a problem with Mary's decision. If you have done your best already, then you should not brood over whatever the consequences which is SPILT MILK.

So your problem SHOULD BE how to deal with Crying over Spilt Milk as the fundamental problem.

If Mary had already done the abortion, why do you cry over spilt milk. If you do, then you have a problem yourself.

The next strategy is to how ensure Mary do not encounter an unwanted pregnancy in the future.If it is a lack of impulse control, so Mary has to develop impulse control but does Mary's historicity [deep and complex] give her the potential to improve her impulse control? This do not necessary involve Mary only but also John who has to improve his impulse control re his sex drive and lust.Note there are a ton of complex variables to deal with re how to ensure Mary do not end up with an unwanted pregnancy in the near future or within her fertile phase of life.

The basic critical requirement for anyone is a state of reasonable equanimity so that the person can be psychological stable to deal with any psychological problems. But for the present, do the person [based on past dasein - historicity] has the potential to develop a state of equanimity?

Note my default approach is always this;If there is a problem, I will do my best to deal with the present with my present state of equanimity, but the focus is always on the future on how to prevent, reduce or eliminate the problem for the individual, group or humanity depending on the context.

I have mentioned before, I am not interested in a psychological counselling for the individual[s] within a forum like this.

Prismatic567 wrote: E.g. if you are walking on tightrope with wind blowing from different sides and one is pushed to one side. Now if you do not make an attempt to adjust to the center line, then you are likely to be pushed to the extreme and fall.The expert tightrope walker will always adjust him/herself back to the center at the slightest deviation to the side.

E.g.? The tightrope walker up on the wire interacts with the elements in an entirely either/or world. He either defeats them or they defeat him.

Morality [in a No God world] is only relevant here when the argument shifts to, say, whether or not his family and loved ones are obligated to talk him out of it. Or whether or not the authorities ought to allow him to do this. Is it his right to risk death in this particular context?

The principle is for whatever problem [tightrope walking as one example] the critical task to get back to the center, i.e. centering and do not let one emotions and other negatives get to the extreme and cannot recover.As I had mentioned, given a current situation [a combination of da-seins] the most is one must do his/her best based on one's ability and once done, do not brood nor regret over the consequences even if it end up with death.

For example, if say despite all your advice but your only very beloved son insist on climbing Mt. Everest in a bad season knowing the high risk of death. Unfortunately the statistics of mortality actually strikes and he is dead. There will be grief, but one should get over it as soon as possible and do not brood nor regret one has not done enough. If one do not know how to get back to the center norm, one's grief could lead to terrible sadness, depression and subsequently suicide due to self-blaming, etc.

Prismatic567 wrote: Example:Say I am within sight of a 10,000++ crowd of abortion protestors and fierce combatants in front of an abortion clinic.What do you expect me to do?

Provide them with an argument able to convince them that while they clearly embrace "rival goods" here and now there is a way to think about abortion such that "in the future" the rival goods will no longer exists; or if they do exist there is a "generic Problem Solving Technique" that allows rational human beings to derive the optimal "progressive Middle-Way" human behaviors.

You have to start somewhere right? I just wish you would start with considerably more substance regarding the actual rival goods that are embraced here and now.

Instead, we get another intellectual contraption:

Prismatic567 wrote: The wiser thing to do are the following;

1. Let the authorities and the law to take care of the current situation2. Observe and listen to what is going on - keep my emotions in check.3. Research on the subject of abortion re For versus Against.4. Apply the Generic Problem Solving Technique to understand and find solutions.5. Proposed solutions to be implemented6. Check the results and control with objectives set

And then:

Prismatic567 wrote: The processes of 3, 4 will take some time to arrive at consensus and 5 & 6 will take a longer time.This is why I have to project my thoughts into the FUTURE and in this case the phases will take us into the future 50, 100 or > years.

Meanwhile here and now the focus is still on either the "natural right" of the baby to be born or the "political right" of the mother to abort it. And the only way that goes away here and now is still in your head.

Let's at least agree on that.

Or, if not, please advise me of how the "real action" that you are taking above has anything remotely to do with the arguments engaged by those outside the abortion clinic pertaining to the actual abortions unfolding inside the clinic.

Also, let's get back to this:

How would a "moral dualist" approach the issue of gun control? What would he or she note to the students and the parents at Parkland High School in Florida?

Should they aim more in the direction of banning assault rifles, or, instead, focus their attention on developing the "psychological skills" needed to cope with these tragedies? Or come up with the optimal combination of both.

What might the optimal combination of both sound like in a philosophical argument?

The assumption always being [between us] that this all unfolds in a No God world.

What I proposed above is the most optimal for an individual at present in facing the above problem.

Note counselling one person is already so complex, especially when you don't have the counselling skill plus your philosophical database is so narrow and shallow.

My question to you is how can you counsel the 10,000++ individuals individually [of complex variables and historicity] to accept your views when their individual historicity is so complex? How??

This is why a rational and wiser person should consider the following;

1. Let the authorities and the law to take care of the current situation2. Observe and listen to what is going on - keep my emotions in check.3. Research on the subject of abortion [or any issues] re For versus Against.4. Apply the Generic Problem Solving Technique to understand and find solutions.5. Proposed solutions to be implemented6. Check the results and control with objectives set

What is most critical is for one to stabilize one own beingness [da-sein] within one's being [action] in time, past, now and future. The essential requirement is a state of reasonable equanimity.

I believe in the above case you are too objective and being an objectivist, i.e. worrying about objects [John, Mary, issue of abortion, etc.] that are external to you and not looking inward to review yourself as the interdependent subject.

Note my principle, one must always complement Yin-Yang, +/-, object with subject and drive spirally [being] within the Middle-Way through the past, present and future.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

iambiguous wrote:What I am still confused regarding however is how you would discuss this with John and Mary [who are not living in the future] so as to encourage them to come up with a way of dealing with this unwanted pregnancy. Unwanted only by Mary however.

And you would tell them this:

Prismatic567 wrote: As I had stated wherever there is a problem we need to view it from various perspectives for the individuals, groups, and humanity in terms of the following;

1. Past trends2. Present situation3. Future state

My focus so far is on the groups and for humanity, i.e. based on past trend and present situation, how can we prevent, reduce and eliminate the problem from emerging in the future in time [re being and time].

My focus is not on the individual because I am not personally entangled on the issue, i.e. for or against abortion.I have personal experiences [some meeting while others do not MY expectations] with my children on other issues -albeit not as critical as the issue of abortion.

In a here and now situation, the following should be noted;

1. Preferable one should have reasonable state of equanimity.2. Know Thyself - do you have the competence to give psychological counselling to another, if not you will need him/her to consult expert[s].3. Do your best but do not expect things to meet YOUR expectations.4. If the other person is an adult say over 18, if it is not a crime, s/he is entitled to the final decision.5. Before engaging the persons involved note their past, present historicity [da-sein and being in time] and future potentials.6. .. and other necessary steps.

As for John & Mary, there is no way I know their Nature [DNA, etc], past, present historicity [da-sein and being in time] and future potentials, the most efficient approach is for me to propose the above generic systematic procedures.

As what you can do is to DO YOUR BEST re the issues surrounding John and Mary, and if you have done your best that is sufficient [how else??]. Whatever the final decisions and consequences [even if lives and deaths are involved] is up to them to face.

But from what I gathered, it is not so much as John and Mary's having problems, but it is rather YOU having a problem with Mary's decision. If you have done your best already, then you should not brood over whatever the consequences which is SPILT MILK.

So your problem SHOULD BE how to deal with Crying over Spilt Milk as the fundamental problem.

If Mary had already done the abortion, why do you cry over spilt milk. If you do, then you have a problem yourself.

The next strategy is to how ensure Mary do not encounter an unwanted pregnancy in the future.If it is a lack of impulse control, so Mary has to develop impulse control but does Mary's historicity [deep and complex] give her the potential to improve her impulse control? This do not necessary involve Mary only but also John who has to improve his impulse control re his sex drive and lust.Note there are a ton of complex variables to deal with re how to ensure Mary do not end up with an unwanted pregnancy in the near future or within her fertile phase of life.

The basic critical requirement for anyone is a state of reasonable equanimity so that the person can be psychological stable to deal with any psychological problems. But for the present, do the person [based on past dasein - historicity] has the potential to develop a state of equanimity?

Note my default approach is always this;If there is a problem, I will do my best to deal with the present with my present state of equanimity, but the focus is always on the future on how to prevent, reduce or eliminate the problem for the individual, group or humanity depending on the context.

I have mentioned before, I am not interested in a psychological counselling for the individual[s] within a forum like this.

From my frame of mind, this in no substantive way has anything to do with the fact that Mary had reasons [deemed sufficient to her] for aborting the baby and John had reasons [deemed sufficient to him] for bringing the baby to term.

Now, in your head, they would hear you out and come up with the most appropriate decision. But in their heads [and I was privy to that] your intellectual contraption above would have had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the conflicting existential narratives they pursued at the time.

Of course if the "Middle-Way progressive" behavior revolves around being celibate, then, sure, we can just blame it all of "impulse control". They could have chosen to become practicing Catholics.

Still, the "spilt milk" back then would have been either the dead baby or Mary being forced to give birth.

Same with the tightrope walker. Getting back to the "center" up on the wire is either/or. Getting back to the center with regard to the moral conflict is is/ought. Didactically you bring the two into sync in your head. But only when you provide me with an argument able to convince me that I too can be in sync here, am I likely to be more understanding of the "intellectual" narrative you provide. Instead, all I grasp is something that you have carefully worked out only in your head.

When someone willingly risks death in a context that they have created themselves it is not only their own existence that is at stake. How much should the fate of others [wives, children, loved ones] be factored in here? How on earth would philosophers go about calculating it?

Also, let's get back to this:

How would a "moral dualist" approach the issue of gun control? What would he or she note to the students and the parents at Parkland High School in Florida?

Should they aim more in the direction of banning assault rifles, or, instead, focus their attention on developing the "psychological skills" needed to cope with these tragedies? Or come up with the optimal combination of both.

What might the optimal combination of both sound like in a philosophical argument?

The assumption always being [between us] that this all unfolds in a No God world.

Prismatic567 wrote: What I proposed above is the most optimal for an individual at present in facing the above problem.

Note counselling one person is already so complex, especially when you don't have the counselling skill plus your philosophical database is so narrow and shallow.

My question to you is how can you counsel the 10,000++ individuals individually [of complex variables and historicity] to accept your views when their individual historicity is so complex? How??

This is why a rational and wiser person should consider the following;

1. Let the authorities and the law to take care of the current situation2. Observe and listen to what is going on - keep my emotions in check.3. Research on the subject of abortion [or any issues] re For versus Against.4. Apply the Generic Problem Solving Technique to understand and find solutions.5. Proposed solutions to be implemented6. Check the results and control with objectives set

What is most critical is for one to stabilize one own beingness [da-sein] within one's being [action] in time, past, now and future. The essential requirement is a state of reasonable equanimity.

I believe in the above case you are too objective and being an objectivist, i.e. worrying about objects [John, Mary, issue of abortion, etc.] that are external to you and not looking inward to review yourself as the interdependent subject.

Note my principle, one must always complement Yin-Yang, +/-, object with subject and drive spirally [being] within the Middle-Way through the past, present and future.

Again, my problem [and, admittedly, I may well be the problem] is that this seems to bear no substantive value/relevance regarding the conflicting arguments being made "here and now" by those on opposite sides of the gun control issue.

In the future, sure, there may well be an optimal frame of mind here. But what would that even begin to sound like given the reality of the conflicting goods here and now?

We would seem to be ever and always back to one or another combination of 1] might makes right 2] right makes might or 3] moderation, negotiation and compromise in a democracy sustained by a political tug of war embedded in the rule of law.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

iambiguous wrote:From my frame of mind, this in no substantive way has anything to do with the fact that Mary had reasons [deemed sufficient to her] for aborting the baby and John had reasons [deemed sufficient to him] for bringing the baby to term.

Now, in your head, they would hear you out and come up with the most appropriate decision. But in their heads [and I was privy to that] your intellectual contraption above would have had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the conflicting existential narratives they pursued at the time.

Of course if the "Middle-Way progressive" behavior revolves around being celibate, then, sure, we can just blame it all of "impulse control". They could have chosen to become practicing Catholics.

Still, the "spilt milk" back then would have been either the dead baby or Mary being forced to give birth.

Same with the tightrope walker. Getting back to the "center" up on the wire is either/or. Getting back to the center with regard to the moral conflict is is/ought. Didactically you bring the two into sync in your head. But only when you provide me with an argument able to convince me that I too can be in sync here, am I likely to be more understanding of the "intellectual" narrative you provide. Instead, all I grasp is something that you have carefully worked out only in your head.

When someone willingly risks death in a context that they have created themselves it is not only their own existence that is at stake. How much should the fate of others [wives, children, loved ones] be factored in here? How on earth would philosophers go about calculating it?

My suggestions were;

1. you do the best you can given the ability and resources you have. 2. Thereafter do not brood over the consequences3. Resolve to find measures to prevent future occurrences

If you are unable to do the above, then you are the one who is having a serious problem and thus will suffer for it.

So the critical problem is not John or Mary, or how it effect others, rather the problem is on you to learn how NOT to have the above attitude [worry to death sort of] so you can avoid sufferings.

Note this video re 'The Suicide Forest' which is about a man who go into the forest regularly to advise people who are about to commit suicide.This is a very wise man who is very concern about the problem of suicides.You will note the wise man there is did his very best given the circumstances to counsel those in a suicidal state but thereafter just leave the final decision to the person.He could have used 'might' to pull the person out of the forest, but it a likely the very desperate would find other ways to commit suicide.

If the persons in the forest are his own 'John' or 'Mary' he would have done the same and hope for the best.

I believe it would be the same with other psychologist and psychiatric counsellors, i.e. they can only give the best advice and not be overwhelmed by the thoughts of the consequences.

The Aokigahara Forest is the most popular site for suicides in Japan. After the novel Kuroi Jukai was published, in which a young lover commits suicide in the forest, people started taking their own lives there at a rate of 50 to 100 deaths a year. The site holds so many bodies that the Yakuza pays homeless people to sneak into the forest and rob the corpses. The authorities sweep for bodies only on an annual basis, as the forest sits at the base of Mt. Fuji and is too dense to patrol more frequently.

Prismatic567 wrote: What I proposed above is the most optimal for an individual at present in facing the above problem.

Note counselling one person is already so complex, especially when you don't have the counselling skill plus your philosophical database is so narrow and shallow.

My question to you is how can you counsel the 10,000++ individuals individually [of complex variables and historicity] to accept your views when their individual historicity is so complex? How??

This is why a rational and wiser person should consider the following;

1. Let the authorities and the law to take care of the current situation2. Observe and listen to what is going on - keep my emotions in check.3. Research on the subject of abortion [or any issues] re For versus Against.4. Apply the Generic Problem Solving Technique to understand and find solutions.5. Proposed solutions to be implemented6. Check the results and control with objectives set

What is most critical is for one to stabilize one own beingness [da-sein] within one's being [action] in time, past, now and future. The essential requirement is a state of reasonable equanimity.

I believe in the above case you are too objective and being an objectivist, i.e. worrying about objects [John, Mary, issue of abortion, etc.] that are external to you and not looking inward to review yourself as the interdependent subject.

Note my principle, one must always complement Yin-Yang, +/-, object with subject and drive spirally [being] within the Middle-Way through the past, present and future.

Again, my problem [and, admittedly, I may well be the problem] is that this seems to bear no substantive value/relevance regarding the conflicting arguments being made "here and now" by those on opposite sides of the gun control issue.

In the future, sure, there may well be an optimal frame of mind here. But what would that even begin to sound like given the reality of the conflicting goods here and now?

We would seem to be ever and always back to one or another combination of 1] might makes right 2] right makes might or 3] moderation, negotiation and compromise in a democracy sustained by a political tug of war embedded in the rule of law.

There is nothing much you or I can do about it but do your best and do not be too emotional over the issue of gun-control.

As with the problem of killing of innocent by guns in the case of school-shooting, the critical root causes are these;

1. The evil proneness and mental health of the killer2. The availability of guns and the ease to own gun(s)

Gun-control is basically a moral issue because innocent humans are killed.The moral absolute is 'No humans can kill another human being'.(any exceptions to be done within ethics and the judiciary).

If we resolve the two root causes, then there will be NO more deliberate shooting of innocent people.'The evil proneness and mental health of the killer' is a tougher root cause to deal with but nevertheless must be addressed.Therefore the most optimal solution is to ensure only certain people [not all] are given licence to own or carry guns. This meant getting rid of the 2nd amendments and creating new laws to restrict gun ownership to special people only.

However at present, given the current psychological state of the majority, it is too complex to get rid of the 2nd amendment.So what we can do is to do our best, i.e. pushing for stricter gun ownership, etc.What is needed is for those concern to keep striving harder but what is fortunate is the moral drive to greater moral good is inherent in all humans.Like illegality of "Chattel Slavery" in all Nations, in future gun ownership by private individuals [except very special cases] will be illegal in all nations.

There is already an existing trend of where gun ownership [with exceptions] is illegal in most countries as compared to 50, 100 or 200 years ago.If I am not mistaken it is only few nations, i.e. the USA, Switzerland,Brazil, Canada and ? which has very permissive firearms policies.

So it is a matter of time [50, 75 or> years] the moral maxim of 'no killing of another human being' will prevail to make gun ownership by private individuals illegal [special exceptions] in all nations.

In the meantime, the most efficient stance you can take is do your best and do not be too emotional over the present state.

1. you do the best you can given the ability and resources you have. 2. Thereafter do not brood over the consequences3. Resolve to find measures to prevent future occurrences

And that is exactly what all the other moral/political/philosophical objectivists will advise in a No God world. Only their own understanding of "doing the best you can" will surely revolve around a different set of "progressive" behaviors.

Then what?

Well, then we have the future. It's out there somewhere ready to determine which frame of mind was the optimal. If, in fact, any of them were. Or, perhaps, decades from now our species will still be embedded in interactions that pretty much revolve around the manner in which I construe the components of the "human condition" here.

Here and now though one thing stays exactly the same: objectivists left and right, religious and secular all clamoring to insist that the future starts -- must start -- with them.

As for your own political narrative pertaining to the gun control debate, that's all it is: a bunch of subjective/subjunctive assumptions culminating in this:

So it is a matter of time [50, 75 or> years] the moral maxim of 'no killing of another human being' will prevail to make gun ownership by private individuals illegal [special exceptions] in all nations.

Now, how old will you be 50 years from now? I'm almost certain to be dead. So, I guess I'll never know.

You, on the other hand, are able to obtain and then sustain "equanimity" here and now by simply knowing all of this is in the offing. Well, if everyone eventually does come around to your own political narrative here.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

1. you do the best you can given the ability and resources you have. 2. Thereafter do not brood over the consequences3. Resolve to find measures to prevent future occurrences

And that is exactly what all the other moral/political/philosophical objectivists will advise in a No God world. Only their own understanding of "doing the best you can" will surely revolve around a different set of "progressive" behaviors.

Then what?

Well, then we have the future. It's out there somewhere ready to determine which frame of mind was the optimal. If, in fact, any of them were. Or, perhaps, decades from now our species will still be embedded in interactions that pretty much revolve around the manner in which I construe the components of the "human condition" here.

Here and now though one thing stays exactly the same: objectivists left and right, religious and secular all clamoring to insist that the future starts -- must start -- with them.

As for your own political narrative pertaining to the gun control debate, that's all it is: a bunch of subjective/subjunctive assumptions culminating in this:

So it is a matter of time [50, 75 or> years] the moral maxim of 'no killing of another human being' will prevail to make gun ownership by private individuals illegal [special exceptions] in all nations.

Now, how old will you be 50 years from now? I'm almost certain to be dead. So, I guess I'll never know.

You, on the other hand, are able to obtain and then sustain "equanimity" here and now by simply knowing all of this is in the offing. Well, if everyone eventually does come around to your own political narrative here.

Note the truth [justified beliefs] will always prevails.What is critical is whatever truths and possible truths in the future which I had proposed, it must be justified beliefs based an extensive and deep knowledge database.

Note there are many philosophers, scientists and others who had make certain truth claims and prediction for the future and they turn out to be true long after the predictors were dead.Note the counter against the masses long ago on the flat Earth Theory, the heliocentric theory.

Did those who predict the above worried it will not materialize in their lifetime?What you implied above is these people should have shut up because what they predicted will not be determined/confirmed by them in their life time.It is the same with the above where you imply my proposals are useless because you and I will not be around in the future to confirm whether they turn out to be true or not.

All you do is to condemn my proposals which are realizable in the future is 'intellectual contraptions of the future'To be credible, you should prove why my proposals cannot be true in the future.So far you have not provided any credible arguments to support your stance.

It is very unfortunate you are caught in such paralyzed stated of mind.I believe your current state of mind in going against justified beliefs in the future is very inhuman, i.e. unnatural. What is natural to humanity is the drive to expand their horizon and this is so empirically evident since humans first emerged from Africa to colonize the whole Earth and the corresponding expansion of knowledge in all fields.

What I can reduce the whole mess you are in is this;

1. If you are caught and entangled with the issue.Say, if you are unfortunately caught with some terrible fatal allergy.If you want to ask me [say, an expert on allergy] for my opinion or solution, I can only offer the best solution based on the whatever knowledge base I have.If you disagree with me, then you still have to resolve your allergy as soon as possible, by seeking solution else where.The point here is you MUST take action to save yourself or suffer the consequences.If you are a normal rational person you will take action.

But with our current discussion on the various issues, whatever solution that is offered by me or anyone else, you complain the solutions are merely "intellectual contraption" and that is not based on any reasonable views nor arguments but merely based on your psychological blindness.To be normal, if you cannot accept the solution of others, then you will have at least come up with your own views and solution.But your response is you cannot offer yourself any solutions because you are stuck in a hole [dilemma] and you are also psychologically paralyzed to accept an external ideas and proposed solution.

From the above, there is something terrible wrong with your mind with that sort of paralysis.If you ever have suicidal tendencies, then no one will be able to talk you out of it and the consequences will be very mortally fatal.

2. If you are not caught personally and directly with the issue.In this case, you are not personally suffering from that fatal allergy but you have introduced the subject as a serious problem to humanity and thus seek to discuss the issue.

In such a discussion, what will arise is a study of the past to find the root causes and proposals to prevent the problem from recurring in the future. In such a situation, those discussing should not too emotional on one's views or the counter views of others.

Since this is discussion of a subject, you have not offerred your alternative views.Your response to my views is the same of 'intellectual contraption' similarly to those of the objectivists.

Since I have uncovered your intellectual paralysis, I believe I have participated enough in this discussion and leave you to your destined fate [hopefully it turn out good].

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

Prismatic567 wrote:Note the truth [justified beliefs] will always prevails.What is critical is whatever truths and possible truths in the future which I had proposed, it must be justified beliefs based an extensive and deep knowledge database.

Note there are many philosophers, scientists and others who had make certain truth claims and prediction for the future and they turn out to be true long after the predictors were dead.Note the counter against the masses long ago on the flat Earth Theory, the heliocentric theory.

Did those who predict the above worried it will not materialize in their lifetime?What you implied above is these people should have shut up because what they predicted will not be determined/confirmed by them in their life time.It is the same with the above where you imply my proposals are useless because you and I will not be around in the future to confirm whether they turn out to be true or not.

All you do is to condemn my proposals which are realizable in the future is 'intellectual contraptions of the future'To be credible, you should prove why my proposals cannot be true in the future.So far you have not provided any credible arguments to support your stance.

It is very unfortunate you are caught in such paralyzed stated of mind.I believe your current state of mind in going against justified beliefs in the future is very inhuman, i.e. unnatural. What is natural to humanity is the drive to expand their horizon and this is so empirically evident since humans first emerged from Africa to colonize the whole Earth and the corresponding expansion of knowledge in all fields.

What I can reduce the whole mess you are in is this;

1. If you are caught and entangled with the issue.Say, if you are unfortunately caught with some terrible fatal allergy.If you want to ask me [say, an expert on allergy] for my opinion or solution, I can only offer the best solution based on the whatever knowledge base I have.If you disagree with me, then you still have to resolve your allergy as soon as possible, by seeking solution else where.The point here is you MUST take action to save yourself or suffer the consequences.If you are a normal rational person you will take action.

But with our current discussion on the various issues, whatever solution that is offered by me or anyone else, you complain the solutions are merely "intellectual contraption" and that is not based on any reasonable views nor arguments but merely based on your psychological blindness.To be normal, if you cannot accept the solution of others, then you will have at least come up with your own views and solution.But your response is you cannot offer yourself any solutions because you are stuck in a hole [dilemma] and you are also psychologically paralyzed to accept an external ideas and proposed solution.

From the above, there is something terrible wrong with your mind with that sort of paralysis.If you ever have suicidal tendencies, then no one will be able to talk you out of it and the consequences will be very mortally fatal.

2. If you are not caught personally and directly with the issue.In this case, you are not personally suffering from that fatal allergy but you have introduced the subject as a serious problem to humanity and thus seek to discuss the issue.

In such a discussion, what will arise is a study of the past to find the root causes and proposals to prevent the problem from recurring in the future. In such a situation, those discussing should not too emotional on one's views or the counter views of others.

Since this is discussion of a subject, you have not offerred your alternative views.Your response to my views is the same of 'intellectual contraption' similarly to those of the objectivists.

Since I have uncovered your intellectual paralysis, I believe I have participated enough in this discussion and leave you to your destined fate [hopefully it turn out good].

Again, all I can do here is to note that, yet again, your entire argument is embedded in a general description of human interactions embedded further in your own particular political prejudices regarding the relationship between the present and the future.

Note that the manner in which you note that "the truth [justified beliefs] will always prevail" is entirely predicated on others embracing the assumptions that you provide them with in yet another intellectual contraption. After all, how is a "fatal allergy" not embodied in the either/or world?

No, only when you are willing to take this numbingly didactic/scholastic contraption of yours down out of the clouds [in a No God world] and flesh it out/defend it pertaining to a context [here and now] that we might all be familiar with is this discussion likely to become, say, substantive?

Consider: It's not for nothing that the nine historical predictions you link us too revolve entirely around components of the either/or world. Sure, there, something predicted either can be realized or it can't.

But let these folks at Reader's Digest predict the outcome of the great moral and political debates that have plagued the species now going all the way back to the caves.

Just not in the manner in which you "predict" the future: my way or the highway.

Besides, five will get you ten their predictions in the is/ought world will revolve around their generally conservative political prejudices.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

I believe quitting is a matter of wisdom, i.e. taking the wiser choice.

It is like seeing a drowning person in the middle of a deep lake.If one assess the drowning person is struggling like mad, it would be very stupid to try to save him/her due to the likelihood s/he will grip so hard and pull the life-saver down as well.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

Prismatic567 wrote: I believe quitting is a matter of wisdom, i.e. taking the wiser choice.

Okay, quitting.

Note the context. Note that which you are able to demonstrate to others as the embodiment of the "wiser choice". Why yours and not theirs?

Again, we may be able to establish that someone has in fact quit in their attempts to demonstrate to others that we live in either a God or a No god world.

But how do we then demonstrate that in fact we do live in a God or a No God world?

How we establish that in fact others are obligated to embrace our own narrative here if they wish to be thought of as a rational human being?

Prismatic567 wrote: It is like seeing a drowning person in the middle of a deep lake.If one assess the drowning person is struggling like mad, it would be very stupid to try to save him/her due to the likelihood s/he will grip so hard and pull the life-saver down as well.

Here we can try to assertain what the facts are. But only to the best of our ability. After all, even with regard to actual facts in the either/or world, only God is privy to all of them.

Mere mortals, on the other hand, can only speculate as to what is actually unfolding in the middle of the lake.

So, when someone broaches the question, "are we morally obligated to make an attempt at rescue?" there will almost certainly be any number of conflicting narratives.

Yet in a God world, we must take into account the judgment of God here.

While in a No God world who is really to say what our moral obligation is?

You with your assessment of the "wiser choice"?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

If god must be perfect, then lesser gods can't exist because they would need to be perfect in order to be a god, and if that is the case, then there is no shit to eat and no reason to have to be perfect. The claim defeats itself.

This part will always be fascinating: Deciding essentially on exactly what the existential parameters of God actually are.

Once, for the sake of argument, we agree that a God, the God does exist then we have to pin God down.

What exactly does it mean to be God? How is the existence of God to be embedded in or become the foundation for the existence of existence itself? Is or is not God omniscient and omnipotent? Is or is not God constrained by the immutable laws of matter?

Does everything exist as it does because that is simply the only way in which it ever could have existed...including God? Or did God choose for it to be that way? And why that way and not some other way? Why quasars and black holes and dark matter and dark energy...and the staggering distances between celestial bodies?

And is it really all just for us here on Earth?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

What if truth about our origins and what type of beings we are is scattered about in all of the major religions in bits and pieces that need to be assembled to make a coherent explanation?

Sure, that's a rather comforting way to think about it. God as this ecumenical Dude combining bits and pieces of all the different denominations into one or another rendition of "can't we all just get along".

But that still leaves the part about deciding which bits and pieces are going to be enacted into legislation [rules of behavior] that does in fact proscribe actual behaviors. Behaviors that are either embraced or excoriated by folks all along the moral and political spectrum.

Sure, up in the clouds of "general description", it's nice to imagine the way the world could be if God and religion were reduced down to the "good of society".

But all we need do is to go here -- viewforum.php?f=3 -- and peruse the arguments of, among others, the liberals and the conservatives. You know, in order to imagine just how far that would go "in reality".

And that's before you get to folks like me who argue that we appear to live in an essentially absurd and meaningless world on this side of the grave, ending for all of eternity in oblivion on the other side of it.

So, maybe the "best of all possible worlds" for most folks here is that at least they're not me!

Yet.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Is it not appropriate that Abraham, the historical figure, as described in Scripture and the father of the three major religions of our time, in the west, was a cuck?Abraham was willing to give his barren wife Sarah to the Pharaoh to gain riches...to survive. This is the legacy of the Abrahamic spiritual nihilism. A willingness to sacrifice everything and anything for the sake of self-preservation and self-aggrandizement.

Actually, I am not at all familiar with Abraham as either a "historical figure" or as the "father" of Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

And I certainly have no opinion as to whether or not he was a "cuck".

No, instead, I'd like to probe the extent to which Abraham and those who follow him can be described as "spiritual nihilists".

How on earth can anyone who believes in such things as a "spirit" or a "soul" or a "God" be ascribed qualities that come anywhere near nihilism?

On the contrary, it seems here that nilhilism is being twisted into an intellectual contraption. One such that it is only to be understood to further the particular political prejudices of yet another objectivist.

Nihilism defined into existence such that you either share his own meaning or you are said to be stupidly ignorant of the one truly "natural" way in which to grasp it.

Me, I start with the assumption that nihilism revolves around living in a world that, in terms of value judgments [religious or otherwise], human interactions are essentially meaningless and absurd. There does not appear to be a font -- religious, philosophical, scientific, political -- enabling mere mortals to make that crucial distinction between "the right thing to do" and "the wrong thing to do".

Instead, my own moral narrative [in a No God world] revolves more around the manner in which Richard Rorty construed "ironism":

* She has radical and continuing doubts about the final vocabulary she currently uses, because she has been impressed by other vocabularies, vocabularies taken as final by people or books she has encountered; *She realizes that argument phrased in her present vocabulary can neither underwrite nor dissolve these doubts; *Insofar as she philosophizes about her situation, she does not think that her vocabulary is closer to reality than others, that it is in touch with a power not herself.

From this perspective then how might one grapple with "Abrahamic spiritual nihilism".

Anyone care to comment? object?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

iambiguous wrote:How on earth can anyone who believes in such things as a "spirit" or a "soul" or a "God" be ascribed qualities that come anywhere near nihilism?

The first two items might simply indicate they are a dualist. That there are non-physical components to reality, in this case dealing with the individual. Reality could still be pointless, allowing no way to determine morals, etc. I could easily see someone who believed in the mechanics and ontology of hinduism being a nihilist. Brahma for some reason breaks himself up into individual souls, who suffer, reincarnate, finally over time realize they are pieces of Brahma and rejoin Brahma. And this will go on forever. No morals, point, lots of suffering in the endless process. Of course most believers see this process as divine and good and that Brahma (and by proxy we) gain something from this leaving and returning that is good. But it is not a necessary condition of the ontology.

Certainly Calvinists with predestination could also be nihilists. Of course most are not, or will not admit it. But where the outcome is determined in advance - people are predestined to go to hell or heaven - morals have no point and life is absurd.

A person believing in Buddhist ontology, or really in one of the many Buddhist ontologies, might easily also be a nihilist for similar reasons to the possible Hindu I mentioned above.

* She has radical and continuing doubts about the final vocabulary she currently uses, because she has been impressed by other vocabularies, vocabularies taken as final by people or books she has encountered;

You have doubts about the vocabulary you use? Why is it always the same, then?

*She realizes that argument phrased in her present vocabulary can neither underwrite nor dissolve these doubts; *Insofar as she philosophizes about her situation, she does not think that her vocabulary is closer to reality than others, that it is in touch with a power not herself.

So when you say that you think that human interactions are 'absurd and meaningless', when you use that particular vocabulary, you do not think those terms are closer to reality than the terms other people use to describe life, even those that contradict those words and your vocabulary? If you do not think they are closer to reality, why keep using them? Why say you think X, if you think X is not closer to reality than Y that, say, a religious person uses or a non-nihilist?

From this perspective then how might one grapple with "Abrahamic spiritual nihilism".

I went more general. I could probably come up with a way to describe what that specific kind of nihilism might be, but the meta-level objections and questions seemed more clear.

iambiguous wrote:How on earth can anyone who believes in such things as a "spirit" or a "soul" or a "God" be ascribed qualities that come anywhere near nihilism?

The first two items might simply indicate they are a dualist. That there are non-physical components to reality, in this case dealing with the individual. Reality could still be pointless, allowing no way to determine morals, etc. I could easily see someone who believed in the mechanics and ontology of hinduism being a nihilist. Brahma for some reason breaks himself up into individual souls, who suffer, reincarnate, finally over time realize they are pieces of Brahma and rejoin Brahma. And this will go on forever. No morals, point, lots of suffering in the endless process. Of course most believers see this process as divine and good and that Brahma (and by proxy we) gain something from this leaving and returning that is good. But it is not a necessary condition of the ontology.

Maybe, but from my point of view, a No God world would seem to revolve around the assumption that existence lacks a teleological component. Any meaning that "I" impart to "my life" can only be based on my own unique set of experiences, relationships and access to knowledge/imformation. All of which is necessarily far removed from an omniscient point of view.

The Hindus have a narrative that you note above. But how is this really not a meaning? It provides something in the way of a guideline for living on this side of the grave. After all, how do those who practice the Hindu faith make that crucial distinction between "the right thing to do" and "the wrong thing to do"? Why one set of behaviors and not another?

And it seems to clearly suggest a life after death.

On the other hand, why their narrative and not one of the others? And how do they go about actually demonstrating the part about reincarnation and Brahma?

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Certainly Calvinists with predestination could also be nihilists. Of course most are not, or will not admit it. But where the outcome is determined in advance - people are predestined to go to hell or heaven - morals have no point and life is absurd.

This sort of thing does not reflect the manner in which I understand the meaning of nihilism. As long as they can point to an entity -- God -- said to be "behind" their "fate", meaning is necessarily subsumed in that. "I" becomes part of a transcending truth. And death is not oblivion.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:

* She has radical and continuing doubts about the final vocabulary she currently uses, because she has been impressed by other vocabularies, vocabularies taken as final by people or books she has encountered;

You have doubts about the vocabulary you use? Why is it always the same, then?

My vocabulary relating to value judgments on this side of the grave -- as they are connected to my fate on the other side of the grave -- is no less an existential contraption. Just as in the past the vocabulary I used as a devout Christian was.

Here and now, it seems reasonable to think as I do. Just as in the past it seemed reasonable to think in very, very different ways. But sans God where is the "final vocabulary" that anchors mere mortals to an objective moral and political agenda?

I'm not saying it doesn't exist, only that "I" am not now privy to it.

*She realizes that argument phrased in her present vocabulary can neither underwrite nor dissolve these doubts; *Insofar as she philosophizes about her situation, she does not think that her vocabulary is closer to reality than others, that it is in touch with a power not herself.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: So when you say that you think that human interactions are 'absurd and meaningless', when you use that particular vocabulary, you do not think those terms are closer to reality than the terms other people use to describe life, even those that contradict those words and your vocabulary?

Here I go back to what appears [to me] to be common sense:

That there is certainly an enormous gap between what "I" think/believe about these relationships here and now and all that would need to be known about the very nature of existence itself in order to know this.

After all, isn't that the whole point of inventing the Gods? Gods provide mere mortals with a teleological foundation -- a Creator -- that can turned to and relied upon to close that gap.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: If you do not think they are closer to reality, why keep using them? Why say you think X, if you think X is not closer to reality than Y that, say, a religious person uses or a non-nihilist?

As long as we choose to interact with others socially, politically and economically, we have little choice but to "use" them to either attain or to sustain particular goals. But why do we choose one set of values here over another? Can these value be understood objectively? In other words, making them obligatory for all those who wish to be thought of as rational human beings? Or, instead, are they embedded/embodied more in the components of my own existential contraption: dasein, conflicting goods, political economy.

From this perspective then how might one grapple with "Abrahamic spiritual nihilism".

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I went more general. I could probably come up with a way to describe what that specific kind of nihilism might be, but the meta-level objections and questions seemed more clear.

Nothing here is less clear to me than those who speak of folks said to be spiritual nihilists and then refuse to note how they embody this relating to actual interactions with others out in a particular world.

To me "meta-level" philosophy is just another tool employed by the modern equivalents of Will Durant's "epistemologists".

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

iambiguous wrote:Maybe, but from my point of view, a No God world would seem to revolve around the assumption that existence lacks a teleological component. Any meaning that "I" impart to "my life" can only be based on my own unique set of experiences, relationships and access to knowledge/imformation. All of which is necessarily far removed from an omniscient point of view.

Yes, but no one is arguing that your beliefs preclude nihilism, and does not contradict what I said above.

The Hindus have a narrative that you note above. But how is this really not a meaning? It provides something in the way of a guideline for living on this side of the grave. After all, how do those who practice the Hindu faith make that crucial distinction between "the right thing to do" and "the wrong thing to do"? Why one set of behaviors and not another?

Many, perhaps most do practice some hinduism version that has morals, but this is not necessary. One could hold that the ontology is true, but leaves no room for meaning or morals. In fact, I think that is a pretty human reaction to the hindu ontology. What meaning is there for a self that is considered not real in Hinduism? Now Hindus might say I am missing something, but you can't tell me that. You cannot tell me that really if Hindu ontology is correct I should think there is meaning and objective morality. Because you are not a Hindu. Further there really is no objective morals in much Hindu metaphysics.

And it seems to clearly suggest a life after death.

Your belief system suggests a life, most likely, after today. That doesn't give meaning or rules for human interaction.

On the other hand, why their narrative and not one of the others? And how do they go about actually demonstrating the part about reincarnation and Brahma?

That is not relevant to the issue. The issue was whether belief in souls or God precluded nihilism, and they do not.

This sort of thing does not reflect the manner in which I understand the meaning of nihilism. As long as they can point to an entity -- God -- said to be "behind" their "fate", meaning is necessarily subsumed in that. "I" becomes part of a transcending truth. And death is not oblivion.

All belief systems insist that an I is part of transcending truths. To a materialist, your eye is part of natural selection processes leading to organisms that suit their environments until they do not. That truth transcends you, explains you, puts you in a narrative. It does not, however, give you objective morals or meaning. Nor does Calvinism. You've also, here, added more meanings to nihilism and I was responding to the ones you listed in the other post. Does this mean that you concede that those facets of what you consider nihilism can apply to people who believe in souls spirits and/or God and that is why you now present new facets or wordings?

Karpel Tunnel wrote:

* She has radical and continuing doubts about the final vocabulary she currently uses, because she has been impressed by other vocabularies, vocabularies taken as final by people or books she has encountered;

You have doubts about the vocabulary you use? Why is it always the same, then?

My vocabulary relating to value judgments on this side of the grave -- as they are connected to my fate on the other side of the grave -- is no less an existential contraption. Just as in the past the vocabulary I used as a devout Christian was.

Here and now, it seems reasonable to think as I do. Just as in the past it seemed reasonable to think in very, very different ways. But sans God where is the "final vocabulary" that anchors mere mortals to an objective moral and political agenda?

I'm not saying it doesn't exist, only that "I" am not now privy to it.

1) so Rorty is only talking about vocabulary in relation to morals? It seemed like a more general set of ideas about language in general.

*She realizes that argument phrased in her present vocabulary can neither underwrite nor dissolve these doubts; *Insofar as she philosophizes about her situation, she does not think that her vocabulary is closer to reality than others, that it is in touch with a power not herself.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: So when you say that you think that human interactions are 'absurd and meaningless', when you use that particular vocabulary, you do not think those terms are closer to reality than the terms other people use to describe life, even those that contradict those words and your vocabulary?

Here I go back to what appears [to me] to be common sense:

That there is certainly an enormous gap between what "I" think/believe about these relationships here and now and all that would need to be known about the very nature of existence itself in order to know this.

After all, isn't that the whole point of inventing the Gods? Gods provide mere mortals with a teleological foundation -- a Creator -- that can turned to and relied upon to close that gap.

You clearly did not answer my question. You restated things you have said many times. I specifically asked about that quote from Rorty as applied to your statements which I cited in the context of those quotes. It's a rude habit to shift to restating your opinions instead of interacting with the response.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: If you do not think they are closer to reality, why keep using them? Why say you think X, if you think X is not closer to reality than Y that, say, a religious person uses or a non-nihilist?

As long as we choose to interact with others socially, politically and economically, we have little choice but to "use" them to either attain or to sustain particular goals. But why do we choose one set of values here over another? Can these value be understood objectively? In other words, making them obligatory for all those who wish to be thought of as rational human beings? Or, instead, are they embedded/embodied more in the components of my own existential contraption: dasein, conflicting goods, political economy.

And this is precisely the same rudeness.

From this perspective then how might one grapple with "Abrahamic spiritual nihilism".

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I went more general. I could probably come up with a way to describe what that specific kind of nihilism might be, but the meta-level objections and questions seemed more clear.

Nothing here is less clear to me than those who speak of folks said to be spiritual nihilists and then refuse to note how they embody this relating to actual interactions with others out in a particular world.

To me "meta-level" philosophy is just another tool employed by the modern equivalents of Will Durant's "epistemologists".

What the fuck are you talking about. You made statements, I criticized them and asked questions. You did not answer the questions or, in the main, respond to the criticism. You shifted the ground of the debate by introducing new facets of nihilism, without acknowledging the reason you needed to do this. You restated opinions, instead of interacting with what seem to me contradictions between what Rorty wrote and what you have written. I have no idea what you mean by meta level philosophy. When I referred to meta-level, it meant that I was challenging your ideas in general, the assumptions in your post. On the other hand I did go into specific cases to raise the met-level issues, the kind of thing Durant thought was important. I did not do it in relation to Abraham. So apart from the fact that you are appealing to authority as justification for an ad hom aimed at me, it doesn't even fit. Ironically, you don't seem to understand that you are constantly raising the same epistemological issue, so of course, in a philosophy forum, or on the fucking street, you are going to encounter discussions of how one knows, at a general level. You repeatedly present your meta-epistemological positions or do you not notice that. You did it here in response to me, in fact instead of responding to points I raised. I found Hinduism precisely nihilistic, though I became convinced that much of the ontology and the use of those words you mentioned were useful and valid. I am quite sure at that point you will want me to demonstrate that it was rational for me to think that. BUT THAT IS NOT THE FUCKING ISSUE. The issue was: can one be nihilistic and use those words: yup. You have no curiosity about that and that is why you shift, as you did in this post, to epistemological issues - how do you demonstrate Brahma, etc.

I still find you lacking in integrity and will return to ignoring you, since you clearly think you have nothing to learn and the only possible actions of anyone reading you are to agree with you or prove objective morals, even though your posts deal with all sorts of issues and a discussion is one where both sides get to evaluate, criticize, question beliefs and arguments.

And seriously, an appeal to authority ad hom? Keep talking to yourself, it's what you seem to be what you want.

iambiguous wrote:Maybe, but from my point of view, a No God world would seem to revolve around the assumption that existence lacks a teleological component. Any meaning that "I" impart to "my life" can only be based on my own unique set of experiences, relationships and access to knowledge/imformation. All of which is necessarily far removed from an omniscient point of view.

Yes, but no one is arguing that your beliefs preclude nihilism, and does not contradict what I said above.

My interest in nihilism is embedded at an intersection -- an intersection between what someone thinks it means and how someone embodies that meaning in their interractions with others. Interactions that, in particular, come into conflict over value judgments. Either in a God or a No God world. With God [said to be omniscient/omnipotent] what can it really mean to speak of nihilism at all? With No God what can it really mean to speak of a meaning said to be applicable to all?

Or, rather, in the is/ought world existentially.

The Hindus have a narrative that you note above. But how is this really not a meaning? It provides something in the way of a guideline for living on this side of the grave. After all, how do those who practice the Hindu faith make that crucial distinction between "the right thing to do" and "the wrong thing to do"? Why one set of behaviors and not another?

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Many, perhaps most do practice some hinduism version that has morals, but this is not necessary. One could hold that the ontology is true, but leaves no room for meaning or morals. In fact, I think that is a pretty human reaction to the hindu ontology. What meaning is there for a self that is considered not real in Hinduism? Now Hindus might say I am missing something, but you can't tell me that. You cannot tell me that really if Hindu ontology is correct I should think there is meaning and objective morality. Because you are not a Hindu. Further there really is no objective morals in much Hindu metaphysics.

Here is my own bottom line though [on this thread]: human interactions require rules of behavior. Why one set of rules and not another? Based on what assessment? Based on what assumptions? How is any particular individual "ontology" -- or a Hindu ontology -- demonstrated to be the optimal or the only rational manner in which these "rules of behaviors" are to be predicated.

Sooner or latter "general descriptions" such as yours must be situated out in a particular context out in a particular world in which behaviors have come into conflict. Then what? Who is to decide how the conflicts are best resolved? And how is this related to one's perceived fate on the other side of the grave?

That's the whole point of this thread.

And it seems to clearly suggest a life after death.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Your belief system suggests a life, most likely, after today. That doesn't give meaning or rules for human interaction.

That's my point though. With God, meaning and rules are subsumed in an essential, trascending font. With No God meaning and rules are subsumed in existential contraptions rooted in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts that evolve over time in the world teeming with contingency, chance and change.

On the other hand, why their narrative and not one of the others? And how do they go about actually demonstrating the part about reincarnation and Brahma?

Karpel Tunnel wrote: That is not relevant to the issue. The issue was whether belief in souls or God precluded nihilism, and they do not.

What is relevant [to me] is the manner in which one understands the meaning of nihilism. And then the meaning of God. And then the extent that one insists that their meaning reflects the optimal or the only rational understanding of them. An omniscient/omnipotent God [as most understand Him] precludes nihilism as I understand it.

But I would never argue that my own understanding of it is any less an existential contraption than yours.

Again, my "take" on this here revolves around this:

This sort of thing does not reflect the manner in which I understand the meaning of nihilism. As long as they can point to an entity -- God -- said to be "behind" their "fate", meaning is necessarily subsumed in that. "I" becomes part of a transcending truth. And death is not oblivion.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: All belief systems insist that an I is part of transcending truths. To a materialist, your eye is part of natural selection processes leading to organisms that suit their environments until they do not. That truth transcends you, explains you, puts you in a narrative. It does not, however, give you objective morals or meaning. Nor does Calvinism. You've also, here, added more meanings to nihilism and I was responding to the ones you listed in the other post. Does this mean that you concede that those facets of what you consider nihilism can apply to people who believe in souls spirits and/or God and that is why you now present new facets or wordings?

This is all numbingly abstract though.

What I focus the beam on is why particular individuals choose particular behaviors in particular contexts. How do they rationalize these behaviors in terms of what they construe [here and now] to be the meaning of such things as "freedom" "will" "justice" "moral obligation" "religion and God".

To what extent are the values of others here not entangled in my own dilemma. A dilemma predicated on the manner in which I construe the components of moral nihilism: dasein, conflicting goods, political economy.

Let's note a context, a set of behaviors in conflict and situate the meaning that we give to the words above in it.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: ...so Rorty is only talking about vocabulary in relation to morals? It seemed like a more general set of ideas about language in general.

There are clearly vocabularies that we use in discussing such things as mathematics, the laws of nature, empirical facts, the logical rules of language. How much conflict is there here? When doctors perform abortions as medical procedures there are any number of things they can all agree on objectively. There are quite simply biological truths here that are applicable to all doctors.

But what of ethicists discussing the morality of abortion? What objective truths -- philosophical truths -- are applicable to all of them?

*She realizes that argument phrased in her present vocabulary can neither underwrite nor dissolve these doubts; *Insofar as she philosophizes about her situation, she does not think that her vocabulary is closer to reality than others, that it is in touch with a power not herself.[/color][/b]

Karpel Tunnel wrote: So when you say that you think that human interactions are 'absurd and meaningless', when you use that particular vocabulary, you do not think those terms are closer to reality than the terms other people use to describe life, even those that contradict those words and your vocabulary?

Here I go back to what appears [to me] to be common sense:

That there is certainly an enormous gap between what "I" think/believe about these relationships here and now and all that would need to be known about the very nature of existence itself in order to know this.

After all, isn't that the whole point of inventing the Gods? Gods provide mere mortals with a teleological foundation -- a Creator -- that can turned to and relied upon to close that gap.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: You clearly did not answer my question. You restated things you have said many times. I specifically asked about that quote from Rorty as applied to your statements which I cited in the context of those quotes. It's a rude habit to shift to restating your opinions instead of interacting with the response.

My understanding of Rorty is no less an existential contraption than his understanding of ironism. Only when these "general descriptions" are implicated in actual conflicted human behaviors can we ever hope to illustrate our "texts" here. So, I repeat myself:

You choose the context, you choose the conflicting value judgments precipitating conflicting behaviors and let's explore all of this more substantively.

Me from a "No God" perspective.

And what would your perspective revolve around?

You speak of things being "closer to reality". What reality? If the discussion were to revolve around, say, the plight of the "Dreamers" here in America, how then might Rorty's points be understood?

Again, from my point of view, you seem more intent on yanking this discussion up into what I construe to be basically the clouds of abstraction.

To wit:

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I went more general. I could probably come up with a way to describe what that specific kind of nihilism might be, but the meta-level objections and questions seemed more clear.

Me: What "on earth" does that mean though?!

To wit:

Nothing here is less clear to me than those who speak of folks said to be spiritual nihilists and then refuse to note how they embody this relating to actual interactions with others out in a particular world.

To me "meta-level" philosophy is just another tool employed by the modern equivalents of Will Durant's "epistemologists".

Karpel Tunnel wrote: What the fuck are you talking about. You made statements, I criticized them and asked questions. You did not answer the questions or, in the main, respond to the criticism. You shifted the ground of the debate by introducing new facets of nihilism, without acknowledging the reason you needed to do this. You restated opinions, instead of interacting with what seem to me contradictions between what Rorty wrote and what you have written. I have no idea what you mean by meta level philosophy. When I referred to meta-level, it meant that I was challenging your ideas in general, the assumptions in your post. On the other hand I did go into specific cases to raise the met-level issues, the kind of thing Durant thought was important. I did not do it in relation to Abraham.

Looks like we're stuck then. You can find others here to discuss/debate all of the technical issues. How a "serious philosopher" would go about discussing/debating the relationship between Abraham, nihilism and conflicted human value judgments/behaviors.

Good luck with that. I'm far more intent on exposing the technical assessments/assumptions derived from that to actual flesh and blood human interactions predicated on conflicting moral/political narratives that precipitate actual consequences out in the world that we live and interact in socially, politically and economically.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: So apart from the fact that you are appealing to authority as justification for an ad hom aimed at me, it doesn't even fit. Ironically, you don't seem to understand that you are constantly raising the same epistemological issue, so of course, in a philosophy forum, or on the fucking street, you are going to encounter discussions of how one knows, at a general level. You repeatedly present your meta-epistemological positions or do you not notice that.

This is bordering on "huffing and puffing". Making me the issue. You level these charges against me but my chief concern is still the same: bringing your own "epistemology" down to earth and testing it "out in the world" of actual conflicting behaviors.

Instead, you are slipping more and more into a subjunctive reaction that exposes much more about you than about me. Why the sudden outburst of chagrin? Why do you feel it necessary to reconfigure the discussion into an attack on me?

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I still find you lacking in integrity and will return to ignoring you, since you clearly think you have nothing to learn and the only possible actions of anyone reading you are to agree with you or prove objective morals, even though your posts deal with all sorts of issues and a discussion is one where both sides get to evaluate, criticize, question beliefs and arguments.

And seriously, an appeal to authority ad hom? Keep talking to yourself, it's what you seem to be what you want.

Note to others:

What do you suppose this indicates to us? Why, when push comes to shove, does this seem to expose just how threatened he may well be becoming by the points I raise.

From my perspective, he's just another Prismatic. He has spent any number of years concocting this elaborate Intellectual Contraption that allows him to present himself as a bona fide Serious Philosopher.

In my view though he falls somewhere between the autodidact and the pedant.

Ever and always intent on keeping philosophy up in the clouds.

Me the "meta-epistemologist"?

Yeah, right.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

This is bordering on "huffing and puffing". Making me the issue. You level these charges against me but my chief concern is still the same: bringing your own "epistemology" down to earth and testing it "out in the world" of actual conflicting behaviors.

Instead, you are slipping more and more into a subjunctive reaction that exposes much more about you than about me. Why the sudden outburst of chagrin? Why do you feel it necessary to reconfigure the discussion into an attack on me?

It's impossible to separate the argument from the way that you present the argument. "The medium is the message".

Note to others:

What do you suppose this indicates to us? Why, when push comes to shove, does this seem to expose just how threatened he may well be becoming by the points I raise.

I would say it indicates that he is frustrated because of the way that you conduct yourself in these discussions.

He's not the only one.

Ever and always intent on keeping philosophy up in the clouds.

I have never seen you take anything "down to earth" and discuss it. I have never seen you respond to someone who has tried to take some issue "down to earth" with anything but abstract dasein babble and the supposed failure of "the tools of philosophy".

Up in the clouds or down to earth, you don't think there is any way to analyze an issue philosophically. Right?

Therefore, your conclusion ... everyone is right from his own point of view. Or is that your starting assumption?

This is bordering on "huffing and puffing". Making me the issue. You level these charges against me but my chief concern is still the same: bringing your own "epistemology" down to earth and testing it "out in the world" of actual conflicting behaviors.

Instead, you are slipping more and more into a subjunctive reaction that exposes much more about you than about me. Why the sudden outburst of chagrin? Why do you feel it necessary to reconfigure the discussion into an attack on me?

It's impossible to separate the argument from the way that you present the argument. "The medium is the message".

Note to others:

What do you suppose this indicates to us? Why, when push comes to shove, does this seem to expose just how threatened he may well be becoming by the points I raise.

I would say it indicates that he is frustrated because of the way that you conduct yourself in these discussions.

He's not the only one.

Ever and always intent on keeping philosophy up in the clouds.

I have never seen you take anything "down to earth" and discuss it. I have never seen you respond to someone who has tried to take some issue "down to earth" with anything but abstract dasein babble and the supposed failure of "the tools of philosophy".

Up in the clouds or down to earth, you don't think there is any way to analyze an issue philosophically. Right?

Therefore, your conclusion ... everyone is right from his own point of view. Or is that your starting assumption?

How am I expected to respond to this?

The point of this thread is to connect the dots between the behaviors that we choose on this side of the grave and our imagined fate on the other side. As this relates to our beliefs regarding God and religion.

Now, when I do that [in what I presume to be a No God world], I am entangled in my dilemma on this side of the grave and presume that oblivion is to be my fate on the other side. That's the intellectual/existential contraption that "in my head" of late seems most reasonable to me. But I acknowledge right from the start that I have no way in which to demonstrate that all other reasonable men and women should concur.

All I can ask of the faithful here is to focus the beam on their own behaviors from this side of the grave as this pertains to their current moral narrative as that pertains to their a God, the God, my God narrative.

And then to note the role of philosophy when these narratives clash regarding particular behaviors in particular contexts.

Here and now [philosophically] I construe myself to be one of Richard Rorty's "ironists".

How about you?

You choose the context, you choose the behaviors, you choose the conflicting goods.

I can assure you that I will take my own frame of mind "down to earth".

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Note just one particular answer that you provided. And then note how the manner in which I reacted to it was not a proper discussion. How in your view did I ignore the particular feedback that you provided.

The only thing that pops into my head now is Communism. And here it appears that your frame of mind revolves around the assumption that to the extent others do not share your own existential reaction to it, they are discussing it improperly.

Here and now [philosophically] I construe myself to be one of Richard Rorty's "ironists".

phyllo wrote:I don't know what that means "down to earth" or "on the ground" out of the clouds.

How does an "ironist" solve or even begin to approach philosophical problems/questions? Or more generally, how does he approach life's problems?

An ironist suggests that with regard to value judgments there appear to be conflicting goods embedded in conflicting moral narratives able to make reasonable arguments based on a conflicting set of assumptions/premises.

Thus in my "abortion trajectory" above, I note that Mary posed arguments she believed justified her aborting her fetus. While John posed arguments he believed justified bringing it to term.

Then what? How would one go about discussing this "properly"?

And how might God and religion factor into any possible [realistic] resolution?

Here at ILP [over and again] we have any number of moral, political and religious "positions" articulated by liberals and conservatives, theists and atheists, that an ironist might deem resonable. Can philosophers then concoct an argument/assessment that is demonstrated [epistemologically] to be the optimal frame of mind, precipitating the optimal set of behaviors?

Maybe. But I am not now privy to it. Are you?

To wit:

You choose the context, you choose the behaviors, you choose the conflicting goods.

phyllo wrote: Give me an example of what that discussion would look like.

Are you kidding? We come upon them all the time here. For example, something happens in the news. Like, say, Trump's narrative regarding immigrants from Mexico. The wall. The Dreamers.

My frame of mind here is that both the liberals and the conservatives are able to pose a political agenda that they are able to articulate rationally. They both make points the other side can't just make go away.

Now, there was once a time in my life when my reaction to issues such as this was as an objectivist. Either in a God or a No God world. My frame of mind then reflected the optimal point of view. Whether as a Christian or a Marxist-Leninist or a Trotskyist or a democratic socialist or a social democrat. There was a right and a wrong way to look at it. And you were either one of us or one of them.

Now, however, I have come to recognize the extent to which my shifting and evolving political prejudices over the years are rooted [existentially: historically, culturally, experientially] in daseins who have come to embody conflicting goods in a "real world" where, ultimately, what counts is either possessing or not possessing the political power to make your own moral agenda, among other things, the "law of the land".

phyllo wrote: You don't distinguish between good and bad, better and worse, progress and regress. You don't accept the usefulness of any philosophical methods or approaches.

This is simply preposterous. I merely suggest that in the is/ought world, such distinctions revolve around "existential contraptions" rooted in the components of moral nihilism. Or, rather, in the manner in which "here and now" I have to construe the meaning of that.

All I insist is that for those who object [either in a God or a No God world] we bring the discussion out into the world of clearly recognizable conflicting human interactions we are all likely to be familiar with.

Though, sure, there is always the possibility that we cannot come to agree on what exactly that entails.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Note just one particular answer that you provided. And then note how the manner in which I reacted to it was not a proper discussion. How in your view did I ignore the particular feedback that you provided.

FFSThis :

This is bordering on "huffing and puffing". Making me the issue....

It's impossible to separate the argument from the way that you present the argument. "The medium is the message".

and this :

Note to others:

What do you suppose this indicates to us? Why, when push comes to shove, does this seem to expose just how threatened he may well be becoming by the points I raise.

I would say it indicates that he is frustrated because of the way that you conduct yourself in these discussions.

An ironist suggests that with regard to value judgments there appear to be conflicting goods embedded in conflicting moral narratives able to make reasonable arguments based on a conflicting set of assumptions/premises.

Thus in my "abortion trajectory" above, I note that Mary posed arguments she believed justified her aborting her fetus. While John posed arguments he believed justified bringing it to term.

Then what? How would one go about discussing this "properly"?

There is no way to discuss it ... it's general and abstract.

You provide nothing concrete.

Here at ILP [over and again] we have any number of moral, political and religious "positions" articulated by liberals and conservatives, theists and atheists, that an ironist might deem resonable. Can philosophers then concoct an argument/assessment that is demonstrated [epistemologically] to be the optimal frame of mind, precipitating the optimal set of behaviors?